Stretched Beyond Their Capacity

It's Friday - time for another report from Dame Glenys Stacey on how the privatised CRCs are doing on another aspect of their work. Here is the press release that accompanies todays release of a report on the thematic inspection of Enforcement and Recall:- 

Overstretched private probation companies struggling with poor enforcement of community sentences, inspectors find

The enforcement by private probation companies of community-based court sentences has been assessed as poor in a report by HM Inspectorate of Probation. Inspectors found that staff in Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) did not see offenders often enough while under supervision on two of the most commonly used non-custodial sentences – community orders and suspended sentence orders.

This lack of meaningful engagement led to poor decisions in managing breaches of the orders. Though the proportion of community-sentences completed or ended early through good progress has been gradually rising, it was still the case that in 2016-17 a total of almost 30,000 court orders were terminated through failure to comply, further offences or other reasons.

Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, has previously raised concerns about remote and infrequent supervision of offenders by CRC staff, sometimes only by phone, which risks breaking the face-to-face relationships which are vital to successful probation work.

In the new report – Enforcement and Recall – Dame Glenys said: “Once again, we found CRCs stretched beyond their capacity.

“Good enforcement relies on good quality probation supervision. CRCs focused on contract compliance, but not seeing people often enough, or not engaging meaningfully with them, are inevitably behind the curve on enforcement, as staff may not know when enforcement is called for, or when purposeful work to re-engage the individual would be better for them and for society.” Poor supervision, Dame Glenys added, “is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment.”

Inspectors also looked at cases where individuals were recalled to prison because of breaches of the conditions of their release into the community under license. It addressed concerns expressed by some commentators that offenders were recalled too readily, for minor breaches. The report showed that a substantial number of people were recalled – with this group accounting for 6,554 out of the prison population of 85,513 in England and Wales on 31 March last year.

However, Dame Glenys said she hoped the report would allay concerns about inappropriate recall. “There have been increases in recall numbers, most recently following the extension of supervision in the community to those sentenced to less than 12 months.”

The inspection found almost all recall decisions by the NPS, the National Probation Service responsible for higher risk offenders, and CRCs were good decisions.

“Often, the level of disengagement or deterioration in the person’s behaviour were such that they could not be safely managed in the community. Recall was appropriate, even when the individual had committed a relatively minor further offence.” The reason for this in CRC cases, inspectors believe, was that recall procedures were generally clear and well understood, and people on licence, and subject to recall, were more likely to be supervised by higher-grade staff who are experienced at making the necessary judgements.

--oo00oo--

Foreword

We reported initial teething problems in enforcement soon after Transforming Rehabilitation, with cases moving to and fro between the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) unnecessarily. Local leaders and staff worked hard to iron out those early difficulties. It is a credit to them that arrangements for CRCs to transfer cases to the NPS for enforcement (as they must) now work as well as they do, time after time. 

At the start of my tenure, magistrates and others were expressing concerns about an apparent reluctance of CRCs to enforce. We alerted the Ministry of Justice last year to our evidence that enforcement was not always happening when it should. CRCs were paid less if too many cases were cut short by enforcement, an incentive not to act. The department acted quickly to redress matters, but understandably, magistrates and others still lack confidence, not sure of effective enforcement. 

I hope that more recent concerns at the other end of the spectrum – that individuals released from prison on licence are being recalled to prison too readily by probation staff – are abated by our inspection findings. There have been increases in recall numbers, most recently following the extension of supervision in the community to those sentenced to less than 12 months. In this inspection, we found almost all NPS and CRC recall decisions were good decisions, with the NPS particularly good at considering alternatives to recall beforehand. 

Often, the level of disengagement or deterioration in the person’s behaviour were such that they could not be safely managed in the community. Recall was appropriate, even when the individual had committed a relatively minor further offence. There is still every reason to be anxious about CRC enforcement, however. We found that NPS cases were sufficiently wellmanaged, whereas too many CRC cases were not. While it seems odd that we found CRCs notably better at recall than enforcement, we think we know why that is. 

Recall procedures are generally clear and well understood, and people on licence are more likely to be supervised by higher-grade staff who are experienced at making the necessary judgements. 

What is more, good enforcement relies on good quality probation supervision. CRCs focused on contract compliance, but not seeing people often enough, or not engaging meaningfully with them, are inevitably behind the curve on enforcement, as staff may not know when enforcement is called for, or when purposeful work to re-engage the individual would be better for them and for society. I suspect this is the biggest issue undermining effective enforcement today: that, in many CRCs, the case management itself is insufficient to enable good enforcement decisions. Instead, poor supervision is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment. 

Once again, we found CRCs stretched beyond their capacity. We hope that the recommendations in this report provide an impetus for change, so that enforcement decisions can be made fairly and appropriately, as part of good, integrated probation practice designed to tackle entrenched reoffending patterns.

Dame Glenys Stacey

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

January 2018

4.3. Conclusions and implications 

Community Rehabilitation Companies 

Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking in the sample of post-sentence supervision cases was poor. We found that several things had a bearing on this: workload pressures, the complexity of the cases, organisational upheaval and the limited opportunities to engage with service users who were reluctant to be supervised. It is far from the case that nothing can be done. It had been possible to access useful services as part of supervision in cases in the wider sample, particularly if there were well-developed partnership arrangements in the locality. However, the current arrangements far too often fail to make an impact on these difficult cases. 

National Probation Service 

Overall, the quality of case management and consequent enforcement decisionmaking in the sample of post-sentence supervision cases was good in the NPS. The complexity of cases being managed was remarkably high, and the proportion of individuals assessed as a high risk of causing serious harm striking. Despite good probation work, most individuals in the sample remained locked in a cycle of brief periods in the community and frequent return to prison. 

Shared conclusion 

There were marked limitations to what could be achieved for these individuals and wider society. Far from turning around people’s lives, the additional elements of supervision seemed to make no tangible difference. High-quality case management by itself did not deliver effective outcomes in most cases. Where positive progress happened, this was attributable either to the persistent efforts of individual practitioners or to the existence of multi-agency approaches aligned to the localities in which the service was delivered – the key partner agencies of police, local authority and health service providers. In some areas such working arrangements were in place. In others they were non-existent. Again, we found no clear pathway for female service users.